Chair
Rennels opened the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance and asked for public
comment on the Larimer County Land Use Code and the County Budget. No one addressed the
Board regarding these topics. Ms. DeLude requested the Board removed Item #1
from the agenda; The Kromer Zoning Violation, File# 01-ZV0227, as the property
owner has submitted an application to the County regarding this issue. Chair
Rennels then noted that the following item is on consent and would not be
discussed unless requested by the Board, staff, or members of the audience.

2. TAFTHILLMINORLAND DIVISION; 04-S2375: This is a request for a
Minor Land Division to adjust the boundary line between two contiguous parcels
and create two lots. The 169.71 acre property is located along the southern
edge of Michaud
Lane, North
of Burlington Northern Railroad and
east of Poudre River. The property
currently contains four small office buildings associated with a mining
operation. The applicant requests a Minor Land Division to adjust the boundary
line between two parcels and therefore create two lots. The applicant
originally applied for a Boundary Line Adjustment, however because one of the
new parcels will be less than 35 acres the applicant is required to apply for a
Minor Land Division. The Land Surveyor of the Larimer County Engineering
Department noted five corrections to be
made prior to the recording of the MLD. The Engineering Department provided
comments regarding transportation /access issues, drainage/ floodplain /
erosion control issues and fees. Taft Hill Road
is an Arterial Road that requires a 120-foot
right-of-way. The existing and proposed right-of-way will need to be dedicated
on the Final Plat. The permits section of the Planning Department provided comments
(refer to comments from Katherine Huber) regarding addressing concerns for this
property. The current address for lot 2 will be changing to correspond to the Larimer County
addressing system. The
proposed Minor Land Division is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
Minor Land Division process as contained in Section 5.4.3 of the Larimer County
Land Use Code. The purpose is to create two lots. Staff findings are that the
proposed Taft Hill Minor Land Division complies with the Review Criteria for Minor
Land Divisions as contained in Section 5.4.3 of the Larimer County Land Use
Code. The Development Services Team Recommendation is for approval of the Taft
Hill Minor Land Division (File #04-S2375) subject to the following conditions
and authorization for the chairman to sign the plat when the conditions are met
and the plat is presented for signature: 1. Prior to the recordation of the
MLD Plat the applicant shall address the Engineering Comments from Dale Greer
in the referral letter dated December 23, 2004. 2. Prior to the recordation
of the MLD Plat the applicant shall address the Engineering Comments from
Roxann Hayes in the referral letter dated December 30, 2004. 3. All conditions of
approval shall be met and the Final Plat recorded by August 7, 2005 or this approval shall
be null and void.

M O T
I O N

Commissioner
Gibson moved that the Board approve the Taft Hill Minor Land Division, File
#04-S2375, as presented and outlined above.

Motion
carried 3-0.

Ms.
Delude then mentioned that she has been in contact with the attorney for the
Carnes Zoning Violation, File #03-ZV0130, and is working with him towards a
resolution on this item; therefore, Ms. Delude requested the Board table this
item to March
28, 2005,
at 3:00 p.m.

M O T
I O N

Commissioner
Wagner moved that the Board table the Carnes Zoning Violation, File #03-ZV0130,
to March
28, 2005
at 3:00
p.m.

Motion
carried 3-0.

Finally,
Mr. Helmick noted that the Building Code Enforcement Division has requested the
Board table the Kloberdanz Building Code Violation, File #04-BV0153, to May 2,
2005, at 3:00 p.m., as they too are working with the property owner towards a
resolution concerning this matter.

M O T
I O N

Commissioner
Gibson moved that the Board table the Kloberdanz Building Code Violation, File#
04-BV0153, to May
2, 2005,
at 3:00
p.m.

Chair
Rennels opened the meeting by explaining there is one item on the agenda
regarding the Moser Subdivision Preliminary Plat. Mr. Lafferty gave a brief
description of the project as noted below:

2.
MOSER SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT; 04-S2287: This is a request for a Preliminary
Plat for the subdivision of a 10 acre parcel into three (3) residential lots.
Currently, one residential use exists on the property. Prior to the submittal
of this application for Preliminary Plat, the applicant processed a General
Development Plan application for the project, primarily in an effort to appeal
the connectivity standards of the Larimer County Land Use Code. Due to the
lack of connectivity, the General Development Plan application received a
recommendation of denial by the Development Services Team and the Planning
Commission, which recommendations were upheld by the Board of County
Commissioners. Since the denial of the applicant’s General Development
application, a new plan has been prepared with a plan for connectivity. On October 20, 2004 the Development
Services Team presented the Preliminary Plat for the Moser Subdivision to the
Larimer County Planning Commission. The primary topic of discussion during the
Planning Commission meeting revolved around the applicant’s proposal for
connectivity, which would not be through their own development site, but rather
through the adjacent subdivision Arleigh Acres. After hearing from all
affected parties, the Planning Commission moved to deny the Preliminary Plat application,
stating that connectivity from County Road 4 to Meining Road as discussed during the
General Development Plan application should occur through the applicants’
property not through the adjacent subdivision. The Planning Commission further
noted that it seemed un-fair to place the impacts of the proposed development
on adjacent property owners. Aside from the connectivity issue there were only
minor discussions regarding the applicant appeal to the required road width due
to the location of existing structures on the property. After hearing the
public testimony and the Planning Commissions’ discussion regarding
connectivity through the adjacent development, which the Development Services
Team was supporting, our recommendation has changed. While still not a popular
recommendation with the applicant and residents along Meining Road in Kent Estates, the
Development Services Team still believes that connectivity is necessary between
County Road 4 and Meining
Road, and
that such connectivity should occur along the Melody Road alignment through the
subject property, which was also the position of the Planning Commission.
However, the applicant does not agree with the Development Services Team
regarding this issue, therefore, a recommendation of denial is being made.

Mr.
Lafferty displayed some photos of the property and of the numerous access
points already in use along Meining Road. Commissioner Gibson questioned why a 3 lot
subdivision is being required to put in a road for a 30 lot subdivision when
that road should have been constructed in the first place. Mr. Lafferty stated
that the Board of County Commissioners at the time felt it was important enough
to obtain the easement, but the road itself was never constructed all the way
through. The applicant, Nan Fisher, addressed the Board noting that she is the
daughter of Gerald Moser and that she and her sister Christina Kozowski, are
working on this project as her father wished to divide the property and give
building lots to each of the sisters. Ms. Fisher agreed that the main issue
surrounds connectivity and drew similarities of her application and the
McDonald subdivision application that was recently approved by the Board. Ms.
Fisher stated that the McDonald subdivision was situated in a similar manner
and they were not required to build a road. Ms. Fisher explained that the
Chief of the Berthoud Fire Department stated he has no issues with the access
point she proposes. Ms. Fisher stated that she will not be imposing on anyone
but her father; and finally, Ms. Fisher stated that the McDonald subdivision
set a precedent and that their application should not have to provide the
connectivity either. Commissioner Wagner asked if anything had changed since
on her application, or if Ms. Fisher was here again before the Board due to her
recent knowledge of the McDonald subdivision approval. Ms. Fisher stated that
nothing has changed in her application since it was last denied, and yes, the
knowledge of the McDonald subdivision is what prompted her to request the
meeting. Commissioner Gibson asked if Ms. Fisher’s proposal was listed in the
staff report. Ms. Fisher stated that it was and some discussion ensued
regarding the lots and how they were situated. Ms. Fisher noted that with her
proposal the tree line located on the lot to the north of their property would
be preserved, and if in fact, the road was built as the Planning Department
requires, then those trees would need to be removed or relocated. Finally, Ms.
Fisher stated that a preliminary estimate of the cost of building the road was
approximately $19,000 to $20,000; she stated this alone would be cost
prohibitive for them to proceed with this development.

At this
time, Chair Rennels opened up the hearing for public comment and Jim Coleman
addressed the Board. Mr. Coleman stated that he is not opposed to the Moser’s
subdividing their property; however, he is concerned with the idea of an
increase in traffic in the neighborhood. Mr. Coleman stated that the quiet
nature of their neighborhood is most appealing and he does not want that
tampered with. Mr. Coleman then read a letter from Bill Aspden, adjoining
neighbors in Kent Estates, who could not attend the meeting this evening. Mr.
Aspden stated that in his opinion, the Moser’s should be able to subdivide
their property without having to “chop up” the neighborhood with additional
roads. Mr. Aspden outlined several other recently approved subdivisions in the
area that used cul-de-sac entrances, or one entrance for all properties, and no
emergency exits are present.

George
Hoffmann addressed the Board noting that he is Vice President of the Culver
Lateral Ditch Company. Mr. Hoffmann explained how the ditches are amassed throughout
this area, and noted that in times of very wet weather, there is the potential
for serious problems. Mr. Hoffmann stated that if the Board was inclined to
require the road be built, then there will need to be provisions to address the
issue of crossing the ditch.

Barbara
Bridgman noted her concern with additional traffic. Ms. Bridgman stated that
they moved to the area due to the fact that it was a dead end road, and they
had an expectation that it would remain as such. She strongly objected to the
road being built off of Meining
Road.
Ms. Bridgman then read a letter from Francis and Susan McCarley, neighbors who
also could not attend the meeting. The McCarley’s stated their concerns as
follows: 1. It is not cost effective for the Moser family to build the road.
2. Traffic on County Road 23 is already causing problems in their
neighborhood, in terms of people speeding and trying to cut through the side
streets that result in dead end roads. 3. It will disrupt the quiet in their
neighborhood and cause safety issues for those pedestrians and children using
the roads. 4. The Moser’s should be able to use County Road 4 as there will
be minimal traffic entering/exiting their subdivision. 5. Emergency equipment
will not use the dirt road, as it will be quicker for them traveling on the
major roads. 6. The law that provides for adverse possession, in that the
easement has not been used by the county for over 20 years, and the surrounding
property owners have now put in pipes for ditches, fencing, planting of field
grasses and alfalfa, and the have controlled the thistle on this property.

Michael
Saur also noted that they purchased land in this area due to the quiet
environment; he stated that the access the Planning Department proposes seems
to be backwards. Mr. Saur reiterated that the Berthoud Fire Chief, Chief
Charles, stated that he supports the Moser’s proposal.

George Hughey
stated that he does not see the need for the road, and is opposed to the
additional traffic it may create.

Alan Lawrence
stated his concern that if the County forces this connectivity, it might cause
homeowners in the area to further subdivide since the rural feel of the area
would be damaged.

Alfonso
Mestas stated that if the County forces a road though this area, people will
travel down it expecting it to take them through and they will be upset when
they reach a dead end. Mr. Mestas noted that the traffic is already bad in
this area.

Peter Bridgman
asked for the Board’s support in this matter; he noted that neither the
neighbors nor the Moser wish to push this road through. Mr. Bridgman also
addressed the issue of adverse possession and requested the Board honor the law
in this matter. Commissioner Gibson asked the County Attorney to clarify the law on adverse possession. Ms.
Haag stated that she was not aware of the law stating that the County would
lose rights to an easement once it is granted, regardless of the length of time
it remains unused. Mr. Bridgman presented a letter from Fire Chief Charles,
stating that the Fire Department would prefer to utilize the paved roads
(rather than the unpaved Meining
Road) as
they provide a more timely response to both medical and fire incidents. Mr.
Bridgman requested the Board exercise good judgment and common sense when
rendering a decision about this issue.

Mr. Hoffman
again addressed the Board and read a letter from Phil West, noting his
opposition to construction of a new road; Chair Rennels noted that the Board
was in receipt of the letter from Mr. West via e-mail.

Ladon Kee
also reiterated that a precedent has been set by the approval of the McDonald
subdivision. Mr. Key stated that there are adjoining properties in this
neighborhood that were not required to build a road, but use a cul-de-sac
entrance/exit as well. Chair Rennels asked staff if the adjoining properties
were approved prior to the Board’s adoption of the Land Use Code. Mr. Lafferty
replied in the affirmative and explained that the two adjoining properties
utilizing the cul-de-sac entrance/exit went through the Minor Residential
Development process, not the subdivision process. Chair Rennels questioned why
Meining
Road was
never connected. Mr. Lafferty noted that there was a dairy farm in the way of
the road, and it was assumed that once the dairy farm ceased to exist, then the
road would be put through; however, this never happened.

Ken Fox
stated that the Moser’s are good neighbors and it would be foolish to run a
road straight up through a ditch.

Lloy
Collier stated that they do not want the connectivity, and would rather have
the privacy, which is why they choose to live where they are, and not in the
city limits.

At this
time Chair Rennels closed public comment. Ms. Fisher wanted to be sure the
Board understood that there would only be one access as the current driveway
would be closed off and the access point would be moved to accommodate one
entrance/exit for all three lots. Chair Rennels also noted that it appeared
there was a secondary request to appeal the 60 foot requirement for internal
roads, and allow a 50 foot wide road instead. Ms. Fisher stated that yes; this
is what she is requesting as they are short by approximately 10 feet.
Commissioner Gibson noted that connectivity is always an issue and he agrees
that all applications must be looked at on a case by case basis. Commissioner
Gibson explained that this application is for family use, that the lot sizes
are consistent with the neighborhood, that crossing the ditch would be a
concern for all, and that a precedent has been set, although reluctantly so.
Commissioner Gibson stated that he would support the application and not
require the road, provided only one access is utilized. Commissioner Wagner
noted that she supports the connectivity requirement in the Land Use Code;
however, she feels strongly about neighborhoods and supports connectivity in
larger subdivision, versus the small three lot family development that is being
considered in this application. Chair Rennels noted as the properties originally
began to develop the road connectivity should have been made and not based upon
future assumptions; she further noted that this one small subdivision would not
solve the connectivity problem, so in this case, she too would support the
application without requiring the connectivity. Mr. Helmick stated that the
purpose of the waiver process is to look at applications on a case by case
basis. He explained that just because an application is approved with a waiver
it should not be construed as precedent setting; it merely means that in the
one instance deviating from the standard would be acceptable, but is should not
necessarily be applied across all instances. Mr. Helmick also noted that this
neighborhood is a “poster child” for bad planning, and is a good example of why
connectivity is crucial in land use planning. Mr. Lafferty stated that since
the Board was inclined to approve this application, the conditions outlined in
the staff report will constitute the staff recommendation, minus condition
number 6, which would have required the connectivity. Recommended conditions
are as follows:

1. The
Final Plat of the Moser Subdivision shall be consistent with the plans,
documents and representations contained in file #04-S2287, unless modified by
the conditions of approval. 2. The applicant shall execute a Development Agreement
and provide a disclosure notice for final plat approval by the County as part
of the Final Plat. These documents shall be recorded with the Final Plat, and
shall provide notice to all future lot owners of the conditions of approval and
issues, costs and fees associated with the approval of this project. 3. The
following fees shall be collected at building issuance for new single family
dwellings: Thompson R2-J School Fees, Larimer County fees for County and Regional Transportation
Capital Expansion, and Larimer County Park Fees (in Lieu of land dedication).
The fee amount that is current at the time of building permit shall apply. 4.
Passive Radon Mitigation measures shall be included in the construction of
residential dwellings on the approved lots. The results of a radon test once
the structure is enclosed but prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy shall be submitted to the Planning Department. As an alternative, a
builder may present a prepaid receipt for a radon tester, which specifies that
a test will be conducted within 30 days. A permanent certificate of occupancy
can be issued when the prepaid receipt is submitted. 5. Prior to the
recordation of the Final Plat the applicant shall seek approval of a variance
for the setback of existing garage from the proposed Moser Road. Should the variance
not be approved the applicant shall move or remove the building from the
non-conforming location.

M O T
I O N

Commissioner
Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Moser
Subdivision Preliminary Plat, File #04-S2287, as outlined by the conditions
listed above.

Motion
carried 3-0.

With
regard to the appeal for the internal road width, Mr. Lafferty recommended the
following condition:

1. The
internal road for the subdivision shall be constructed to the specifications of
the Larimer County Engineering Department requirements for such roads. Said
road shall be contained within a 50 foot wide right-of-way, rather than the
typical 60 feet.

M O T
I O N

Commissioner
Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the applicants
request for an appeal to Section 9.7.3 of the Larimer County Land Use Code to
allow a 50 foot right-of-way internal road, rather than the 60 foot
requirement, which would be the standard requirement.

1. PUBLIC
COMMENT: Hal
Cochrane presented a slide show for the Board regarding his study of the Parks
Department proposed North End Campground/RV Park. Mr. Cochrane restated his
opinion that this proposal is not cost effective and should not be considered
for approval.

Larry
Lechner also addressed the Board noting his objections to the North End Campground;
he stated that the project is a non-conforming use and that surrounding
communities, such as LaPorte, are also not in favor of the campground being
sited in Bellvue.

Gary
Wamsley, Sharlynn Wamsley, and Joyce Kilmer addressed the Board regarding sales
or transfer of the properties that are in the Big Thompson flood plain. The
Wamsley's presented the Board with a copy of the Book Reflection on the River,
and a collection of the newspaper clippings from the Big Thompson Flood and the
events afterwards. Discussion ensued regarding the plans the County has to
sell these parcels, with the Wamsley's and Ms. Kilmer noting their concerns
with trespassers in the area, and their desire to maintain the sanctity of this
land. The Board invited them to the worksession scheduled for this topic on Thursday, February 10, 2005. Mr. Wamsely noted
that he would be interested and happy to serve on an advisory committee
regarding this issue.

2.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE WEEK OF JANUARY 31, 2005:

Commissioner
Wagner requested an amendment to the minutes to include the discussion
regarding the primary seatbelt law. Ms. Cookman stated that she would include
this discussion item in the minutes.

M O T
I O N

Commissioner
Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the minutes for the
week of January
31, 2005, with
the addition of the discussion regarding the primary seatbelt law.

Motion
carried 3-0.

3.
REVIEW OF THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 14, 2005: Ms. Hart reviewed the
upcoming schedule with the Board.

4.
CONSENT AGENDA:

M O T
I O N

Commissioner
Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items
as presented on the Consent Agenda for February 8, 2005:

5. RECOGNITION
OF TRACY HINES, SALES TAX ADMINISTRATOR: Mr. Lancaster noted that during the past
two years Ms. Hines has recovered over $330,000 in sales tax owed to Larimer County. Mr. Lancaster stated
that it was hard work and diligence on behalf of Ms. Hines to accomplish this.
The Board publicly thanked Ms. Hines for her efforts.

6. COMMISSIONERS
INPUT REGARDING ELECTED OFFICIAL ACTIVITIES ON STATEWIDE AND/OR NATIONAL LEVELS:
Mr. Doyle
explained that he has been requested to serve on election committees both
statewide and nationally; he noted that there are costs associated with this interaction,
mainly in the form of travel expenses. Mr. Doyle stated that he has the funds
to cover the additional expenses and noted his involvement thus far has been
invaluable to Larimer County in terms of impacting decisions on a nationwide
level and being progressive, rather than reactive to new Federal laws and
regulations that have recently be enacted. Mr. Doyle requested the Board's
support his continued involvement in this capacity. Chair Rennels noted that
it is quite a compliment that Mr. Doyle has been asked to participate at this
level. Commissioner Gibson stated that Mr. Doyle's ideas and interaction with
the committees has been very positive for Larimer County as a whole. Commissioner Wagner wanted to be
sure that Mr. Doyle included his constituents in making decisions and
representing the county in the elections process. Mr. Doyle assured
Commissioner Wagner that he interacts with voters all across the county and
they assist in determining the direction of the elections process in Larimer County.

7. FAMILY
MEDICAL LEAVE ACT (FMLA) POLICY CHANGE: Ms. Cerciello requested the Board’s
approval on revising the Human Resources policy number 331.6.24A, regarding the
Family Medical Leave Act, to ensure compliance with Federal law and
regulations. Ms. Cerciello explained that the current FMLA policy requires the
concurrent use of all accrued paid leave balances when an employee is on
FMLA-qualifying leave. Ms. Cerciello noted that Federal law does not allow
employers to require employees to use compensatory time concurrently with FMLA
leave; therefore, she requested that and explanation to the policy be added
explaining that if an employee requests to use accrued compensatory time while
on FMLA leave, that time cannot be counted against the employee’s FMLA leave
entitlement. Commissioner Gibson asked if the Human Resources Department has
considered combining all types of leave into one “pot” for the employee to use
as they wish. Ms. Cerciello stated that the County has looked at the option of
combining all types of time off into a “personal time” bank for the employee;
however, compensatory time would be excluded and would still need to be
accounted for separately.

M O T
I O N

Commissioner
Gibson moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve the revision of
Larimer County Human Resources Policy and Procedure 331.6.24A as outlined to
ensure compliance with Federal law and regulations.

Motion
carried 3-0.

8.
DESIGNATION OF WAVERLY COMMUNITY AS A COMMUNITY INFLUENCE AREA: Mr. Legg introduced Jane
Clark, Sue Foster, and John Volarti as representatives of the Waverly Community
Group. Mr. Legg noted that the Waverly Community Group wishes to initiate a
process to keep the citizens of Waverly informed of Land Use Applications that affect
their community; as a result of this desire, and after meeting with the
Planning Department, the group requests that the Waverly area be designated as
a Community Influence Area. Mr. Legg stated that the area would be bounded on
the north by County Road 72, bounded on the east by County Road 11, bounded on
the south by County Road 64, and bounded on the west by County Road 21, and
that these boundaries would be considered the Waverly Community Influence Area.
Some discussion ensued, with Ms. Clark noting that the group has been meeting
for three years and they are most interested in the development of their
community and planning for their future growth. Chair Rennels praised their
efforts stating that they have done a good job in putting together a solid
group of citizens that meet on a regular basis. Commissioner Gibson questioned
what they hoped to expect from this process and how will their needs be met.
Ms. Clark stated that the Community Influence Area will create a synergy and a
center around which the community can connect and assist in the direction, and
voice what they feel is important to their community. Commissioner Wagner
questioned who would review the applications. Ms. Clark stated that initially
the current active steering committee would review the applications, with the
goal being a more formalized group would take over this function. The Board
supported the creation of the Waverly Community Influence Area.

M O T
I O N

Commissioner
Wagner moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve that the Larimer
County Planning Department designate in its notification process the Waverly
area, as described above, as a Community Influence Area. The Planning
Department shall send referral information to the Waverly Community Group at
the address prescribed by the group. The referral shall be made at the public
hearing application stage and shall include but not be limited to, General
Development Plans, Re-zonings, Special Reviews, Special Exceptions, Minor
Special Revises. Location and extent will be forwarded to the Waverly Group
with the understanding that statutory limitations may not permit adequate time
for the group to comment.

Motion
carried 3-0.

9.
PRESENTATION OF NEW SPECIAL EVENTS PROCESS: Mr. Lancaster demonstrated the new
on-line version of applying for a Special Event in Larimer County; he noted that the new
process allows individuals to apply on-line, and adds the option of utilizing a
credit card for payment. Mr. Lancaster explained that the applicant will
receive e-mail notification regarding the status of their application, and
they, as well as the general public, will be able to log on to the internet 24
hours a day to check on the applications of special events occurring in their
neighborhoods and along the roadways. The Board had some suggestions for
improvement regarding clearer notification of the 45 day time limit for
applying, and providing an opportunity for feedback right on the special events
page itself. The Board thanked Mr. Lancaster and the webmaster Steve Moore for
their hard work on this project.

10.WORKSESSION: Commissioner
Wagner requested that the scheduled citizen meetings be rotated amongst the
Board, in order to afford citizens the opportunity to speak and get to know all
the commissioners, not just the one assigned to their district. The Board
agreed that this would be a good idea, and Chair Rennels recommended publishing
this information in advance so the citizens would be aware of which
commissioner would be in attendance at their specific meeting.

11.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE:
Mr. Timm updated the Board on a Senate Bill 177, which in essence, allows
individuals to files claims against cities, counties and the state for Land Use
acts that adversely affect their property. Mr. Timm noted that the bill might
also force the counties, cities and state to create different land use
regulations for different pieces of property, depending upon when owners
acquired their property, and what types of zoning/re-zoning has taken place on
adjoining properties. Mr. Helmick gave the Board some background on a similar
bill that was recently passed in the state of Oregon; he noted that it is estimated this bill
will cost approximately $46,000,000 to $300,000,000 in administrative costs
alone. Mr. Timm and Mr. Helmick stated that it is bad legislation and
requested that the Board not support it. The Board agreed and noted that they
would oppose SB 177. Mr. Gluckman then updated the Board on SB135 which
prohibits any local entity to contract with a bonding company before an
election. Mr. Gluckman noted that this could have a huge impact, particularly
on the smaller entities that might not have the expertise on hand to carry out
this task on their own. Mr. Lancaster noted that this idea came about in
order to stop the bonding companies from supporting citizen groups. The Board
agreed that they would oppose this legislation as well.

12.
COMMISSIONER ACTIVITY REPORTS: The Board noted their attendance at events
during the past week.